Email this article to a friend

US moving on nuke arms cuts decision

Tuesday - 7/3/2012, 2:53am EDT

By ROBERT BURNS
AP National Security Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is moving toward decisions that
would further cut the number of U.S. nuclear weapons, possibly to between 1,000
and 1,100, reflecting new thinking on the role of nuclear weapons in an age of
terror, current and former officials say.

The reductions under consideration are in line with President Barack Obama's
vision of trimming the nation's nuclear arsenal without harming national security
in the short term, and in the longer term, eliminating nuclear weapons.

The White House has yet to announce any plan for reducing the number of nuclear
weapons, beyond commitments made in the recently completed New Start treaty with
Russia, which obliges both countries to reduce their number of deployed long-range
nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550 by 2018. As of March 1, Russia had dropped
its total to 1,492 and the U.S. stood at 1,737.

Obama has been considering a range of options for additional cuts, including a
low-end range that would leave between 300 and 400 warheads. Several current and
former officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal
deliberations, said there appeared to be a consensus building around the more
modest reduction to 1,000 to 1,100 deployed strategic warheads.

Officials have indicated that a decision could be announced this month. But
given Republican criticism of any proposed further cuts and the heating up of the
presidential election campaign, the White House might put the decisions on hold
until after November. The administration has indicated it would prefer to pursue
further reductions as part of a negotiation with Russia, but some have suggested
that reductions could be done unilaterally.

Any reductions are likely to stir opposition among Republicans in Congress, who
believe Obama underestimates the importance of a stable nuclear deterrent, even
though the cuts probably would save tens of billions of dollars.

"I just want to go on record as saying that there are many of us that are
going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion
does not gain any real traction," Rep. Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican
who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said when The Associated Press
first revealed the scope of possible cuts in February.

Beyond the argument over numbers are more fundamental questions: What role do
nuclear weapons have after the Cold War, now that the threat of all-out nuclear
war with Moscow has abated? Do nuclear weapons deter belligerents such as al-Qaida
or other terrorist organizations? The administration considered these questions in
an internal reassessment of nuclear weapons policy.

James Cartwright, the retired Marine Corps general who commanded U.S. nuclear
forces from 2004-07, thinks the U.S. should acknowledge that a large nuclear force
is of limited value in deterring today's major threats.

"No sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to
solve any of the major 21st century problems we face," including threats
posed by rogue states, terrorism, cyber warfare or climate change, Cartwright and
his colleagues at Global Zero wrote in a report in May. Global Zero is an
organization that advocates a step-by-step process to achieve the eventual
elimination of all nuclear weapons.

The group argues that the U.S. could safely reduce its arsenal over the coming
10 years to 900 total nuclear weapons _ 450 deployed at any given time and a like
number held in reserve. That compares with the current U.S. arsenal of about 5,000
weapons, of which 1,737 are deployed.

Advocates of cutting below 1,550 argue that nuclear weapons serve an
increasingly narrow purpose, and that their large numbers undercut the credibility
of demands that Iran and other nations forgo acquiring their own. Opponents argue
that the U.S. should not risk losing its predominant position in the nuclear arena
while North Korea, Iran and other are pursuing their own nuclear ambitions.

Obama himself has made clear in recent statements that he thinks the time is
right to break with the past.

"The massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War is poorly
suited to today's threats, including nuclear terrorism," he said March 26 in
Seoul. He noted that last summer he ordered his national security team to
undertake a comprehensive review of nuclear forces and policies, which was
completed early this year.

"We can already say with confidence that we have more nuclear weapons than
we need," Obama said.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said he
interprets Obama's views as supportive of keeping only enough of them to deter
existing nuclear powers like Russia and China _ not to deter attacks with other
types of mass-casualty weapons like biological or chemical arms.